Best Case Scenario for RAID 1+0 and adding more drives

Client has HP server that is running Exchange 2007. It has 2 physical drives that are configured as a RAID 1+0 (10) both are 72g Drives. The server is only a year old and I am wanting to increase his space. With this configuration because I see that it only lists 1 logical drive but 2 physical drives when I put in the other drives what should take place?
Hp configuration is loaded.
What space can I increase to is it (smallest drive)*(number of drives)/2?
I have 8 more slots for HD's What would you do?

Veeam is happy to provide a free NFR license (1 year, 2 sockets) to all certified IT Pros. The license allows for the non-production use of Veeam Availability Suite v9.5 in your home lab, without any feature limitations. It works for both VMware and Hyper-V environments

IF that really is RAID 10 mode acting as a mirror I wonder if you can add 2 more 72g's and the stripe half of the 1+0 will enable.

0

seanlewisokcAuthor Commented: 2008-11-10

That puts it in the corner of not what ifs but what to do's. I need a solution if anyone has ran across this with having to tear anything down. My worst case scenario is I shift Exchange off to remoteexchange and rebuild. Im not onsite at the time and need a solutions before I roll out 500 miles away.

First step, of course, would be to backup, then install partition management software.

I have performed this a few times on RAID1 and RAID5 volumes. Dell, HP, and generic servers.

0

seanlewisokcAuthor Commented: 2008-11-10

Aleghart - I like your proposal and the fact you have same equipment and issue it seems like.
Yes I can confirm that max space is 68g'ish. What if I just add the drives to the server? I.E. I put 3 drives in the server array those in a RAID 5 146/146/146 = Total 292 for D: and move the Exchange DB over to that? or am I shooting too far off.

If you have the space, you can create another array (RAID1 or RAID5) for a "D: drive" for data.

BTW, you don't have to mount it as a letter. You can mount as an NTFS partition if that makes less hassle for shortcuts and existing scripts/automation, etc.

For instance, you can format the new volume as C:\DATA or D:\

0

seanlewisokcAuthor Commented: 2008-11-10

There are 8 more bays for the hd's.
Does anything need to be prepped for the new array?
I think going with separate volume that way anyone comes in behind me can see a clear cut reasoning for the RAID 1+0 on the other set of drives.

>RAID5 prefferably not, as it has slower access time than RAID1 or 10.

HP's entry-level RAID controllers suffer from the "write-hole" on RAID5. High-end controllers, like those from 3Ware offer writes upwards of 100+MB/s, so not an issue.

RAID5 should be used for space (versus speed) and expandability a single drive at a time. For general office use, I've never had a problem with speed. That includes GroupWise, Exhange, BES, Sharepoint, MRP & ERP database systems including MS-SQL...for 20-30+ user offices. RAID 5 still has relevant use, contrary to new opinion that all things should be fast, fast, fast, regardless of application.

In a high-volume environment (electronic pre-press) I still had a RAID5, albeit with redundant controllers. Speed was noticeably impacted by the array on file transfer up to the server and copies from folder to folder. But the bigger bottleneck was the actual processing time by the software. The drives could keep up with the software at the time.

0

seanlewisokcAuthor Commented: 2008-11-11

I appreciate the info. I have used RAID 5 several times for storage arrays. RAID 10 was first time I have ever seen this configuration with 2 drives.
Plan is to create another RAID 10 with 4-72g HP drives That gives exchange lots of growth for 2 years until upgrade at 144g for a D: Data drive for edb logs and exchange files in general. I will update you guys with end result and issues that I had and how much time it took. So future people can see something all the way through. That is the only part I hate about forums with an answer that may or may not have worked is if it did you never hear the end result for the most part.